Grading President Trump's first 500 days in office

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," June 4, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Good evening from Washington, I'm Laura Ingraham and this is "The Ingraham Angle." You do not want to miss a moment of this show, again we have so much to share with you. New stories breaking, it always seems to happen right before the show but the Me Too Movement is catching up with Bill Clinton who comes unglued wagging that bony finger during an interview about Monica Lewinsky. Juanita Broderick and Cathleen Willey are here to discuss the questions NBC failed to ask. Also Bayern New York has a stunning new piece out, new information that could open the government's case against Michael Flynn. Plus the Supreme Court rules on the religious rights of a baker who was sued by a same sex couple but Mike Huckabee says it settles nothing. And why is the border patrol union chief now saying that the deploying the national guard to the border was a waste? You are going to want to stick around for his explanation. But first, Bill Clinton and a party in denial, that's the focus of tonight's Angle. Twenty years later, Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party refuse to learn the lessons of the past. Even when confronted with reality, they have a problem processing the truth. During an interview to push this new thriller that he supposedly co-wrote with James Patterson, Former President Bill Clinton was asked this by NBC anchor Craig Melvin


CRAIG MELVIN, NBC ANCHOR: If you were President now in 2018, with everything that's going on with the Me Too Movement, how would you have approached the accusations differently?

BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well I don't think that there would be any issue because people would be using the facts instead of the imagined facts. If the facts are the same today I wouldn't, a lot of the facts have been conveniently omitted to make the story work.


INGRAHAM: Which facts are those? Oh maybe this fact?


CLINTON: I did not have sexual relations with that woman.


INGRAHAM: Oh actually he did. He had an affair with that woman, a White House intern and then perjured himself in a deposition. Now this all came to light in a sexual harassment case brought against Clinton by Paula Jones.


INTERVIEWER: The statement there was not sex of any kind in any manner shape or form with President Clinton was an utterly false statement is that correct?

CLINTON: It depends upon what the meaning of the word is.


INGRAHAM: Is? It's still ridiculous that he said that. Yes it is. Oh my gosh, every time I hear that it's like I still can't believe he said that. Now the President eventually admitted to the relationship with Lewinsky and called it wrong. And in a recent Vanity Fair piece, Monica Lewinsky herself wrote the following, "It constituted a gross abuse of power. He was my boss, he was the most powerful man on the planet. He was 27 years my senior with enough life experience to know better. He was at the time at the pinnacle of his career while I was in my first job out of college". When Clinton was confronted with all of this, he got very, very defensive.


MELVIN: I asked if you have ever apologized and you said you have.

CLINTON: I have.

MELVIN: You've apologized to her?

CLINTON: I've apologized to everybody in the world.

MELVIN: You didn't apologize to her?

CLINTON: I have not talked to her.

MELVIN: Don't you feel you own her an apology?

CLINTON: No, I have never talked to her. But I did say publicly on more than one occasion that I was sorry. That's very different.


INGRAHAM: Well Melvin continued to press the former President about a private apology, causing his co-author James Patterson to rush in like Alex Cross.


JAMES PATTERSON, CO-AUTHOR: I think this thing has been, it's 20 years ago. Come on, let's talk about JFK, let's talk about LBJ, stop already.


INGRAHAM: Stop already? Is that the name of one of this new books? Some of Harvey Weinstein's crimes took place 20 years ago did they not? And should we just forgive and forget all those grievous assaults against women as well? Bill Clinton red-faced and indignant refused to give an inch.


CLINTON: You think President Kennedy should have resigned? Do you believe President Johnson should have reigned? I've tried to do a good job since then with my life and with my work. That's all I have to say to you.


INGRAHAM: I loved how he tried to turn the tables on the reporter, but Bill he's the reporter. He doesn't have to answer the questions to reconcile with his public past, you do. Even Clinton's own party at this point seems to want him to go away. This is the ruined past of the party confronting its pathetic present. Because like Clinton the Democrats refuse to learn the lessons of the past. Despite their previous embrace of sexual predators from Weinstein to Spacey, the Democrats have erected a Me Too Movement and created a political infrastructure that they hope, they hope will deliver female voters to the polls in November. But Bill Clinton remains a bothersome obstacle to their assuming the moral high ground on sexual harassment.

A poll of registered votes in May found that 80 percent of Democrat voter considered sexual harassment a top issue for them. And only 38 percent of Republicans feel the same way. The Democrats believe that this is their new wedge issue. Obama and Hillary Clinton, come on let's remember they were all about dividing Americans using race and gender to drive people to the polls. Amazingly Democrats have embraced that approach today. And while Obama disparaged working class as bitter people clinging to their guns and religion, Hillary questioned women's sanity for daring to vote for Trump. But the curious thing beyond the impeachment and his shameful behaviour id that Bill Clinton could actually teach the Democrats a lot. Though of course he was a committed globalist on issues like China getting into WTO and NAFTA, he was also a Southern Democrat and he did understand that blue collar sensibility, the working people. And remember when Clinton declared this in his Re-election year State of the Union?


CLINTON: We know and we have worked to give the American people a smaller, less bureaucratic government in Washington. And we have to give the American people one that lives within its means. The era of big government is over.


INGRAHAM: Clinton oversaw Welfare reform, he collaborated with the Republicans to pass a balanced budget and he signed that defensive marriage act, a lot of people forget that. This was after the '94 shellacking the Democrats had with that midterm election cycle. Clinton's like, "Well I got work for the Republicans now". That made sense. And even during his wife's campaign, he reportedly confronted her staff about their seeming disinterest in working class Americans, and he reportedly urged them reach out to those voters who were feeling ignored. His advice was dismissed though.

Led by Robby Mook, Hillary's campaign decided to double down on targeting young Latino and Black voters in an effort to win the Presidency. Well that worked out well. Like Bill Clinton's failure to read the signs of the times and appreciate the lessons of the past, Democrats refuse to acknowledge and respect the voters that Trump has brought into the fold. Should this continue? Clinton and James Patterson may want to reconsider a new title for their book when it premiers in paperback, `The Democratic President is Missing, and so are his Voters'. And that's the Angle. If Clinton got that upset discussing Lewinsky, imagine if the Today's Show asked about the women who had told him no. Joining us now are Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick, author of the new book, "You'd better put some ice on that, how I survived being raped by Bill Clinton". It's great to see you both of you. I have been thinking about both of you all day and also Paula. Juanita, I want to start with you. Bill Clinton did approach you, did he not in 1992 to apologize, correct?

JUANITTA BROADDRICK, NURSING HOME ADMINISTRATOR: Yeah. Yes he did. It was in 1991 when I was I Little Rock Nursing Seminar. Some comes to the door and says I'm wanted in the hallway. I go out and the man points down around the corner by the elevator and so I go down there and as I round the corner, there stands Bill Clinton with two of his Arkinsaw state police guards. And he rushes over to me and he starts this profuse apology and saying, "I'm so sorry for what I did, I'm a changed man, I'm just not the man I used to be, and even said I'm a family man now". And I just looked at him Laura, and I was just flabbergasted and I said you go to hell and I walked off. And I could not believe it and then nurses that were with me, followed me out. And they came over to me and said, "What did he want?" and I told them. And then I began to feel a little bad that I said that. I kept thinking, well maybe he really meant that, maybe he really was apologizing.

INGRAHAM: And then what happened? And then you realised fast forward that he was running for President and you were going to perhaps be an obstacle to that?

BROADDRICK: Right that's exactly it. A week later after he apologized, he announced he was running for President.

INGRAHAM: A week later? That's really, that's really subtle.

INGRAHAM: Kathleen Willey you watched that interview today and I have got to say I am always stunned. Why am I stunned? He has not learned anything about this experience. He's actually a smart guy so I'm almost speechless.
Your reaction.

KATHLEEN WILLEY, FOMER WHITE HOUSE VOLUNTEER AIDE: I was speechless too. I was outraged. I could not believe the words that were coming out of his mouth and he was so arrogant and pompous about the whole thing. I think he actually does believe that he didn't do anything wrong. And this blanket apology, "I've apologized to everybody in the world". Well okay, but he hasn't apologized to the people that he hurt and the people that he destroyed, the women that he destroyed. He hasn't apologized to me, he has not apologized to Paula. He apologized to Juanita but as we see there was a plan to that, there was a purpose for that. And he hasn't apologized to Leslie or numerous other women who've come forward and said and told stories about it. He never will, he doesn't get it and that's just the way it is.

INGRAHAM: Well seems to think that he handled it well. To watch that interview, he didn't say that would have done anything differently. Everyone makes mistakes in their lives, could have, should have, would have, we all do, I mean Lord knows we all do. But you would think 20 years later he would say, "You know I wish I could turn back the clock and show better judgment". I mean I do that 50 times a day, "Why did I do that?" It's just a little strange. Alisyn Camerota on CNN offered somewhat tepid critique of this performance, let's watch.


ALISYN CAMORATA, CNN ANCHOR: There could have been a more practised answer or one that I think eluded to the notion that the rules have changed in the last 20 years. Obviously the rules were different and that he would have done something perhaps differently today or that he would say something differently about it today.


INGRAHAM: He could have had a more practised answer. Juanita, yeah. He could also not portrayed himself as a victim. How does he become the victim in all of this?

BROADDRICK: Oh my gosh, oh my gosh, oh I know. I saw this decrepit, angry old man who was trying to play the victim card. The same man who 40 years ago raped me. It was disgusting.

INGRAHAM: Well Kathleen it would have been really amazing, I'm shocked at Melvin who asked these questions. It would have been really amazing if he asked about Juanita, you and the others. But he focused on Monica Lewinsky because I get that was the impeachment but--. I mean even Joe Lockhart, let's just ply this quickly. I want Kathleen to react to this. Joe Lockhart, former White House Press Secretary said this today, let's watch.


JOE LOCKHART, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: It highlights the vast difference between what it was like 20 years ago and today. I think in that interview he succumbed to being the victim and feeling victimized.


INGRAHAM: Victimized Kathleen, if he apologized to you--

WILLEY: Well he left the White House $16 million in debt. And let me tell you what being in debt is like and not being able to get a meaningful job after being through all of that. And he hired all of these women to work in his office and he had a sexual harassment policy in Arkinsaw. Yeah well he probably had a lot of women around so he could assault them and there's no sexual harassment policy in Arkinsaw, there never was one. There never was one. He just--

INGRAHAM: Kathleen, if he called you today and said, "Look I know I came out bad on that interview but I'm really sorry for causing you pain. I'm sorry for what I did", would you accept his apology?

WILLEY: No I would tell him the same thing Juanita told him.

INGRAHAM: Which would be?
WILLEY: I'd tell him to go to hell.

INGRAHAM: Juanita same question, if he calls to today and look everybody can be redeemed right? We are supposed to believe in redemption, all of us, well most of us.

BROADDRICK: I don't believe there's any redemption in regard to Bill and Hillary Clinton. I do not believe that and I would probably tell him the same thing again today. I mean I suffered-yeah.

INGRAHAM: Well thank you both for being here tonight and sharing your perspective.

WILLEY: You're welcome, great to be here.

BROADDRICK: Yeah thanks Laura.

INGRAHAM: I mean I'm still speechless and guys as I described in the Angle, the Democratic Party is facing problems far greater than Clinton's past though. These are substantive problems. Especially the refusal to recognise that they've lost a huge chunk of the White working class in America. Now let's get insight from Democratic Pollster Doug Schoen who helped Clinton rebrand his message after the shellacking in the `94 midterms. Doug it's so great to see you tonight. I was watching Bill Clinton's press conference that he did at the White House. I know you remember well on November 9th 1994, oh my God we were all young back then Doug, we were all kids. We were watching that and he said, "Look I take partial responsibility for what happened. The voters want change. I'm going to work with Republicans. I'm not going to turn my back on my goals but I'm going to work with Republicans". He basically said because that's what the people want. That is what the people want today too I believe.

DOUG SCHOEN, DEMOCRATIC POLLSTER: It absolutely is and that's why I am so upset with the current direction of the Democratic Party where the progressive left is pushing the party farther and farther. We distribute, resist, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed healthcare but no individual initiative. No job creation, no helping business and Laura most of all, no inclusive policies because what we did with Bill Clinton which was, I think right, was we brought the country together, balanced budget, welfare reform. I'm proud of that and I think he's proud of that. If there were aspects as there are of his record that frankly require apologies and no pride, well we heard that today. But he does have, I think, a record that represents a better direction for the Democratic Party than the current one.

INGRAHAM: Yeah that November election in '94 was historic. The house after50 years being shut out went Republican. Gingrich rides in and there were real ideas. There was a real debate about ideas and I say this to my Democrats all the time, Doug, "How are you going to get to 4.7 percent GDP, if that Atlanta Fed prediction is right, how are you going to get to record low unemployment for African Americans, how are you going to get business confidence?" And it's like, "Well Robert Mueller". Every time it's Robert Mueller or Paul Manafort. Okay I get it, that's important. But how are you going to make the lives of average Americans better Doug, and they don't
want to have that conversation.

SCHOEN: Well let me say it bluntly. The Democratic Party is in a civil war between the moderates, a shrinking group that speak for and represent in my own way. And the surging progressives who represent basically socialism and a series of policies that guarantees outcomes, rather than opportunities. I think it's bad for America, bad for the Democratic Party and I think you're right and sadly all that was good about what we were able to do in the '90s has disappeared. And I as a Democrat, I disagree with the President on a lot of things but it's hard to reject the extraordinary job numbers of last week and I hope Donald Trump will work to bring this country together in a way that it really needs.

INGRAHAM: You think about Corey Booker and Kamala Harris voting against prison reform which has historically been an issue that the Democrats have embraced because Donald Trump is for it, and the right to trial legislation? Some Democrats said we don't want to do the end of life special care, that end of life people get. They don't want to do that. They don't want to do the amnesty for almost two million illegal immigrants last February, because Donald Trump said we have to do something about chain migration. That's insane, that's just not governing, that s saying no to everything.

SCHOEN: Look, I agree. I was one of those who said to Bill Clinton, "You've got to work with Newt Gingrich, got to work with the Republicans, we've got to compromise on a balanced budget, welfare reform, debt reduction, you are absolutely right about immigration. You're absolutely right about policies to benefit the economy. I don't understand why the Democrats are doing what they are doing because it's sure not helping them in the polls and if they go on this course, it will lead to them losing the senate as most observers predict and even falling short of winning the house which is something that still remains within reach for them.

INGRAHAM: Wild. Doug Schoen it's so great to talk to you tonight.

SCHOEN: It is, it makes no sense.

INGRAHAM: It very important 500 days into the Trump Presidency, thank you so much. And speaking of 500 days, Trump now has the backing if his own party like few Presidents have had before him, we are going to debate that and Trump's message for the Philadelphia eagles today, that's next.
Welcome back to the Ingraham Angle. This morning the President tweeted, "This is my 500th day in Office and we have a lot. Many believe more than any President in his first 500 days". He's very competitive, okay. In fact most Republicans do agree based on ballot numbers. Trump has the second highest ratings ever by a President's own Party after the 500 day mark at
87 percent, that's second only to George W. Bush and that of course was after 911. So does this all spell some trouble for the Democrats who've already lost their big lead in the midterm generic election polls? They're all now dead even. Let's dive into that with Matt Schlapp, Chairman of the American Conservative Union and Democratic Strategist and good friend of the program Joel Payne.
Alright we are going to do our report cards as well. We've got our report cards but 500 days in Matt, I've got to say I thought Trump would do well, I didn't think he'd do this well. I did not predict, I predicted he was going to win the Presidency. What I did not predict is what looks like a projection to 4 percent+ GDP next quarter, confidence up, African American unemployment on historic lows, the list goes on, Jerusalem moving them embassy. All of this stuff, I guess I'm kind of speechless about that.

MATT SCHLAPP, CHAIRMAN OF THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION: Having worked in the White House, what I'm amazed about is just the flooding of decisions, promised made, promise kept on issue after issue after issue.
You just don't see that. Presidents like to space it out, take a breath and this President has just done. I had to write it all down, you can't keep to keep track of it, there's so much getting done, it's amazing.

INGRAHAM: Patient for change. Now your report card for the President, do we have separate rosters for them? I think we do. His domestic policy report card, you give the President am A, and the reasons?

SCLAPP: How do you do better than a growing economy, Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court--

INGRAHAM: Oh look at it you have your own report card, isn't that cute?
Look at that, I love it, why are you in red, that's usually for an F, okay go ahead Matt I'm sorry.

SCHLAPP: On the red side I think what he did with Title X was incredibly brave. Past Republican Presidents have passed that buck. The Republicans in Congress might not want to fund that bill but the President is willing to do it on issue after issue after issue. And I tell you the final thing rolling back all those regulations. I think that has had the biggest compact on the economy and that's why we are growing.

INGRAHAM: Defunding Planned Parenthood. With the tax in there--

SCHLAPP: It was good, it was very good but I think the regulations are bigger. I think the Obama regulations had a bigger dampening on the economy.

INGRAHAM: Yeah okay, Joel you give a different report card--

JOLE PAYNE, STRATEGIST: Yeah I'm like the 54 percent of America that's not happy here on this side of the table. You guys represent the 36 percent that is happy. I'm the 54 percent that's not happy.

INGRAHAM: Okay so tell us why. Why you can gave him an F which that's a rough grade.

PAYNE: Yeah you were giving me hard time about it in the break and I'm sorry that's just what it is. Listen, this President has been an abject failure in any way you measure it. People entered this Presidency being able to afford their gas, being able to afford their health insurance, they cant now. Also their social security, their Medicare has been put at risk by this President. He has been a complete and total complete washout and a failure as far as domestic policy President. And I'm surprised that established Republicans haven't stood up more to this President to fight for some of the values they claim they care about.

INGRAHAM: Here's an establishment Republican Ryan Castello from Pennsylvania, Trump won Pennsylvania first time as you pointed out HW won in '88. This is what he said on MSNBC and he's retiring, let's watch.


RYAN CASTELLO, PENNSYLVANINAN CONGRESSMAN: There are instances where you do see Republicans push back in the house of the Senate and I've found myself very, very frustrated because we have the right, we have the left and we do have a centre and I think a lot of folks in the centre don't know what to believe. And you get your head chopped off if you are in the middle trying to balance things out and use some common sense.

INGRAHAM: He picked up his marbles and went home. He's retiring and at age like 30--

PAYNE: That's a little young to be retiring. That sounds just--

SCLAPP: A lot of these Republicans of the house who aren't running for re- election, they thought Trump was so ferocious that they ran out of town.

INGRAHAM: That is funny. We have to go to foreign policy though Joel, you were a little more generous okay. First of all on the domestic policy just with African American unemployment and historic aw you have to give him more than an F but I'm going to leave that behind, let's leave that behind.
On foreign policy you gave him a D+, why?

PAYNE: Didn't give him an F. we'll have another segment on that. Well I put the plus on there, I was going to do minus and I put the plus.

INGRAHAM: That's just not credible at all.

PAYNE: You know I actually think the grade is more incomplete, I think we have to see what happens with North Korea. Listen, I am not a fan of this President, I'll be the first to the first person to give him credit if he can actually bring peace to the North Korean Peninsula. So if he can stabilise the Peninsula, I will give this President credit. But everything else he has embarrassed us on the main stage.

INGRAHAM: How is that?

PAYNE: He destabilized the Middle East--
INGRAHAM: How has he embarrassed us on the world stage? Obama was apologising for the first three months of his Presidency.

PAYNE: If you'll let me finish I'll explain to you.


PAYNE: He's destabilised the Middle East, he caused--

INGRAHAM: How is that, he killed ISIS off, ISIS is gone.

PAYNE: Yeah also was responsible for the deaths of a lot of innocent women and children a couple of weeks ago by destabilizing--

INGRAHAM: Oh and Obama never hid drones. Drones were never Obama, the left trashed though Obama for drones. Matt foreign policy?

SCHLAPP: B+ and I would say I didn't give him an A only because he's upsetting the apple cart, we have got to see how it comes together. I'm so happy about Iran, I'm so happy about NAFTA, I'm happy about a lot of these changes. I love North Korea but we got to see what the next step is. I think he's got a chance to be transformational on foreign policy. Now is about execution with Bolton and Pompeo at his side which makes me pretty happy.

PAYNE: I'll move it up to a C if he does get on North Korea.

INGRAHAM: Oh good you get a C. You are a tough grant credit in your class.
Guys I want to get your thoughts on something that developed late today just before we aired, amid reports that many players were refusing to show up to the White House tomorrow, President Trump disinvited the Philadelphia Eagles ahead of their visit to celebrate the team's super bowl win. The President in a statement scolded the team over their refusal to proudly stand for the national anthem, hand on heart. Matt Schlapp, was that a smart thing to do? Disinvite the people who were coming?
SCHLAPP: I feel bad for the fans that made the trip to be here. But I don't think there's anyone in America that feels sorry for the NFL players.
I think we are tired of this old group of cast it characters--

INGRAHAM: NBA is much better about this. They seem to--

SCHAPP: Hey I was at the CAPS game, everybody stood, all the Hockey

INGRAHAM: Why does the NBA manage to do that right?

PAYNE: I can't stand those NFL players even though all the Eagles stood the entire year, no one knelt, no one sat down. Check "The Washington Times" February 1st, 2010. So none of them knelt, none of them say down, and the president decided --

SCHLAPP: Then why didn't they want to make the White House?

PAYNE: Because none of them want to be there because they don't want to be associated with him. By the way --


PAYNE: President Obama -- by the way, President Obama, many people did not come to the White House over the eight years president Obama did. Did he ever just invite one? Not one. This guy is a snowflake. He can't handle criticism. He can't handle a tough crowd.

INGRAHAM: Wait a second.

PAYNE: If he can't handle Carson, hopefully he can handle --

INGRAHAM: I've got to say, I actually would have had them come. I wouldn't have disinvited them. I would have had them come.

PAYNE: Of course. He's a snowflake.

INGRAHAM: First of all, Joel, he beat the Clintons, the Obama's, the entire press corps.

PAYNE: Yes, he beat them by minus 3 million votes. He did a great job.

INGRAHAM: OK, Mr. get rid of the Electoral College. That's fine. You can do that next show. He beat Hollywood, the GOP establishment, he clear cut the whole field --

PAYNE: A race to 43 percent.

INGRAHAM: He's afraid of taking on competition? Rubio, Kasich, Jeb Bush, all of them gone. Don't tell me he's afraid. That's an unfair criticism. He took on all of them and he clear cut the field. By the way, should new information cause Mike Flynn to retract his plea deal? Is that even possible? Byron York is here next with information that could change everything next.


INGRAHAM: Stunning new info has come to light in the case of former national security advisor Mike Flynn. It could lead Flynn to retract his guilty plea and undercut the argument that President Trump tried to obstruct justice. The "Washington Examiner's" Byron York is here to explain the importance of the new information along with civil rights attorney and RNC committee from California Harmeet Dhillon. Great to see both of you.Byron, I just told you I was up the middle of the night last night in bed on my phone, which you are not supposed to do, and I was reading your piece, which is really sad. But it was good because I learned a lot.


INGRAHAM: But Mike Flynn, we were led to believe he lied. He lied to everybody about his contacts with Russia, whether he discussed sanctions or not. Now we find out because of the White House counsel making a memo to the file in February that that might not have been true.

YORK: You and I have talked about how James Comey, FBI director at the time, told Congress that the agents who interviewed Flynn didn't think he lied. What we learned now is that everybody in the White House knew that in real time that basically Flynn had told people that the FBI agents had told him that not only did they think he had not lied but they thought they were winding this down. You can say maybe we shouldn't trust Flynn on this, but it's consistent with what Comey had told the House and the Senate. It also means on February 14th last year when James Comey wrote that memo about meeting with the president and the president said, I hope you can see your way to letting this go, letting this Flynn thing go, at the time it appears the president, one, knew that the FBI didn't think he had lied, and, two, thought the investigation was all but over.

INGRAHAM: So you can't obstruct an investigation that you think is all but over, then why do we say let it go? What was he letting go if the investigation was over?

YORK: If it was all but over -- come on, wrap this thing up, please. We know you think he didn't lie.

INGRAHAM: So McGahn, the White House counsel, told the president and shared what happened with the president, correct?

YORK: Absolutely. McGahn talks about actually meeting with the president to tell him.

INGRAHAM: So Mike Flynn pleads guilty to false statements because he wants to avoid -- this happens all the time, jail, jail for his son? Going bankrupt? Family difficulty? Is that what we think happened?

YORK: We should say we are speculating about that. Flynn has not said a word about this that I'm aware of, and dependents who have pleaded guilty and are awaiting sentences usually don't talk.

INGRAHAM: Harmeet, I have to ask you this. Can Michael Flynn withdraw from a plea deal if indeed this went down as we think it went down, Comey seems to confirm it, now McGahn confirms it in this memo to the file. What gives here?

HARMEET DHILLON, ATTORNEY: Yes, absolutely. It's unusual, but prior to sentencing, in the interest of justice, the lawyers for Flynn can convince the judge that the predicates for a guilty plea, which the judge's obligation to find out, whether the person is pleading guilty voluntarily and without coercion and duress. So I think that is one factor here that you just mentioned is potentially a factor. And number two, the predicate facts for the guilty plea, it's not for the judge to accept someone's guilty plea if the facts are not there. And so if the facts aren't there, and remember this is a judge who has recently well after the plea ordered the government to disclose the Brady evidence, exculpatory evidence to the Flynn team. That indicates to me the judge has a question as to the predicate facts. And so now it's up to Flynn's lawyers to tell the judge that the plea was not based on full information, and/or --

INGRAHAM: Harmeet, I have a question. Can the judge sua sponte decide to reopen the plea, say, look, I don't like what I'm hearing here? Can he or she do that?

DHILLON: It has happened as well. So for example, where a judge has a concern about adequacy of counsel or maybe the mental fitness of a defendant is typically where that happens. But I think that was a hint. A lot of us raised our eyebrows where the judge said to the government affirmatively be sure you give over that evidence. So maybe there was a question in the judge's --

INGRAHAM: It's getting very interesting, that's all I can say. I want to talk about the pardon issue, because that has taken everybody's attention now. Since yesterday when Rudy Giuliani, he gives an appearance and he does manage to monopolize the narrative. Byron, Chris Christie heard what Rudy said about, well, yes, the president can pardon himself, but he's not going to do that. He has absolute authority except for impeachment. This is what happened on ABC. Let's watch.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He left open the possibility of the president pardoning himself even though he says he doesn't expect him to do it, he would have the right to do it.

CHRIS CHRISTIE, (R) FORMER NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR: Listen, there's no way that will happen. And the reason it won't is because it then becomes a political problem, George. If the president were to pardon himself, he would get impeached.


INGRAHAM: Byron, this is one of these issues that Andy McCarthy was on this morning on radio, and he's like why are we even talking about this?
So why am I talking about it? But this is how the media, they follow this stuff down this rabbit hole. And maybe there is a method to the madness of Giuliani getting people on this? I don't know.

YORK: Back in the campaign, Republicans were saying if Hillary Clinton were elected, she'd have to pardon herself.


YORK: Marco Rubio actually said that at one of the debates as a matter of fact.

INGRAHAM: We actually have a headline from Law and Crime, Dan Abrams. Let's show that on the screens. "If Hillary is indicted, President Clinton could pardon herself and Congress might be helpless." That's the headline. There it is. That's the headline. This is the great thing about the Internet. You can look up these headlines. Harmeet, I have to play for you, speaking of Rudy, he was on CNN tonight with this back and forth. Let's watch.


CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: Why do you think they chose to lie about his role in drafting this statement about Trump Jr's meeting with the Russians?

RUDY GIULIANI, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ATTORNEY: That's the danger of going under oath. You can make a mistake -- please let me finish.

CUOMO: Please, go ahead.

GIULIANI: You can make a mistake, you can make a mistake, and then if you want to, you can say it's a lie. But it was a mistake. I swear to God, it was a mistake. The guy made a mistake. He was corrected.


INGRAHAM: Harmeet, they hammered Sarah Huckabee Sanders today on this question at the briefing. What of this? I mean, initially the president was involved in the response of his son, now apparently he dictated his response.

DHILLON: There is an inconsistency that Rudy was pointing out. That doesn't mean that there is a lie. It simply means there is an inconsistency. And exhibit A for a while you do not fall into the Democratic trap of even opening up this issue is general Flynn that we just spoke about. There could be a question that is posed without the significance being known, and then all of a sudden it turns into a major federal crime because there was a witch hunt going on. So I think that's really what it is issue here. It's not a great thing, but it is important to clean it up. And hopefully his current counsel is giving him the correct advice on how to do that.

INGRAHAM: Byron, we're almost out of time, but Grassley was like, if this is my lawyer, I'd fire him today. Grassley is like, fire Giuliani. He's mouthing off on all this, the pardons.

YORK: I think the position was it wasn't a lie, but if it was a lie, it was only to "The New York Times" and that's not a crime.

INGRAHAM: And they lie to us all the time so it does not really -- no.
OK, guys, it's great to have you on.

In moments, Mike Huckabee on why today's Supreme Court decision on same-sex
wedding cakes fell flat. Stay there.


INGRAHAM: The Supreme Court ruled today in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. But the high court didn't address the larger issue of religious liberties versus individual rights. Let's discuss today's seven to two decision with former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and law professor Mark Rienzi, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Great to see both of you. All right, Gov, you are not wild about this decision, and I know it's because Justice Kennedy, we call him AMK at the court because of his middle initial, Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion. Why are you not thrilled?

MIKE HUCKABEE, FORMER ARKANSAS GOVERNOR: It's not that I'm unhappy. I think it was a great decision for the baker. And it was a good first step. The court didn't really get into the religious liberty, but it is very significant that it recognized that the government had overreached and had essentially told someone who is a creator, he's an artist, that the government can't tell an artist what kind of art to produce. And it would have been different, Laura, had they said that the baker wouldn't sell anything in his bakery to people who were gay. But that wasn't the issue. He was open for business, but he wasn't going to create something that violated his conscience. And by the way, he didn't create certain things at Halloween either because it violated his conscience. And this was a good decision. It could have been better, but it certainly was an important decision and a very vital first step to stay that you can't have a government just telling people what they will believe and how they will practice their craft. The government doesn't have that kind of power.

INGRAHAM: Now, this is what Justice Thomas, for whom I clerked, full disclosure, he wrote a concurrence in the judgment. And he wrote the following, "Concerns about "dignity" and "stigma" because the majority had referenced, we can't stigmatize gay Americans who want services and goods, said those concerns "did not carry when this court affirmed the right of white supremacists to burn a 25 foot cross or conduct a rally on Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday or circulate a film featuring hooded Klan members who were brandishing weapons." I want you to respond to this, Mr. Ramsey. So the justice is right. They weren't concerned about stigma then. But now Justice Kennedy is -- he was playing pretty soft on this. I think this is a very clear-cut case.

MARK RIENZI, PRESIDENT, THE BECKET FUND: I think is a clear cut case, and actually I agree with Governor Huckabee the decision is a really good first step. Here's what happened in the decision. Justice Kennedy said for seven members of the court, pretty broad agreement, that when the government says that your religious beliefs are illegitimate or like racism, or you are wrong and need to be extinguished, that then the government is violating the free exercise clause. So I think what you are going to see is in a lot of these cases, that's precisely what the argument is. It's people pounding on the race card. This is just like racism. This is like supporting the holocaust and things like that. That kind of argument is now gone and it's going to make government policy illegal.

INGRAHAM: I think there is very little guidance to the lower courts, though. There's not a lot of guidance on how you determine this expressive conduct. And I think a lot of gay Americans are like, make me a cake. It's not going to kill you to make a cake. But this guy, he said I'll make cakes for showers that you have, or birthdays, or other celebrations. He actually said that. So I think a lot of people who just read the headlines didn't know that, that this man was going to do lots of things for this couple. He was willing to do that, but just not the wedding cake, which I think tipped it over the edge for --

RIENZI: I think that does tip it over the edge. It makes it clear it's not about a cake. It's about some people trying to drive out religious believes that they think are illegitimate and wrong. So it wasn't that people need a cake or they need a bouquet of flowers. It really is that they want the government to drive up believes that they don't like.

INGRAHAM: Governor Huckabee, when you think about religion in the United States today and how it's portrayed in the popular culture, how it seems to be demeaned, we look up at billboards at Easter time or Christmas, there is an affront to Christians I think they feel regularly that is tolerated.
It's just like, oh, the Christians aren't going to kick up a fuss. But in this case, this baker decided, you know something? I'm not a bad person. I'm not going to be driven out of business. I'm going to fight for my right. And I think a lot of other religious Americans of faith have to be willing to fight for their own rights, just like gay people want to fight for their rights. Other people have rights, too, and it doesn't make them bad people.

HUCKABEE: God bless Jack Phillips for having the courage and the tenacity to go through this, because if this had failed, keep in might, then what are you going to do? Are you going to tell an Orthodox Jew that runs a delicatessen that if someone comes in and says I want bacon wrapped shrimp for my reception that he has to do it? Nobody thinks that is legitimate. So why should a Christian, or for that matter, a Muslim, have to create something -- again, not something that is on his shelf that he regularly makes, but something that is a part of his artistry, something that is above and beyond and is a unique creation for a specific occasion, and a person who is in business should have a right to say that's not really within my creative capacity, or it violates my convictions and conscience, and I simply cannot do it. I will help you find somebody else.

INGRAHAM: And he was vilified. He was vilified. He received death threats. This guy is just a baker. And its' not like there aren't other bakeries in the United States you can go to. Anyway, great conversation, guys. It was good, by the way, it was good thing when President Trump sent National Guard troops to the border, right? Well, maybe now. One of the nation's top experts on border security tells us why next.


INGRAHAM: The head of the Border Patrol Agents union was glad when President Trump sent an additional 1,600 National Guard troops to the border. But now he calls it a colossal waste. He's here to tell us why, Brendan Judd. I saw your comments. OK, I've got to get Brandon in the studio. What is going on, because I was like, OK, this is good. Reading in Arizona, we've got 1,200 arrests because of Border Patrol getting help from the National Guard. Good stuff there. So what gives?

BRANDON JUDD, NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL: You've got to understand, I don't get to control the headlines of print media nor do I get to control the context that they put in my quotes. I will say that my quotes were accurate except for maybe one, but that was a 17 minute conversation that I had. And that was --

INGRAHAM: Is it a colossal waste are not, Brandon?

JUDD: No, it's not a colossal waste. In fact what the context of the conversation was, if we don't know if we are deploying our agents properly right now, we don't know if the National Guard was needed. I have testified before Congress. "The Washington Times" wrote a great article about how we are not deploying our troops properly, our agents properly. And so if we don't know that, we don't know if the National Guard was needed. And that was the problem that was the context.

INGRAHAM: What about now? Jerry Brown doesn't want the National Guard --

JUDD: The National Guard is needed. The National Guard is absolutely needed. But what we have to do is we have to know the scope of the deployment. We have to use them properly, and if we are not using them properly --

INGRAHAM: Who determines that? The head of the Border Patrol?

JUDD: It's the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security.

INGRAHAM: Are they not coordinating enough?

JUDD: They are coordinating, but what you look at is I have complete and total competence in Secretary Nielsen. I think she is a great secretary. What I don't have confidence in is I do not have confidence in the Obama holdovers that are being promoted within our agency that give us all the failed policies, the catch and release policy and the unsecured border, those individuals that are giving her the advice we have issues with.

INGRAHAM: OK. You are going to be at the White House tomorrow. The Philadelphia Eagles are not coming. But you are still going to be able to get the president's ear on this. He watches the show occasionally. He needs to hear from you.The Homeland Security said while the National Guard deployment has not reached full capacity, it clearly and unquestionably has been a success with thousands of additional apprehensions and millions of dollars in drugs kept that of our country. More help, though, is on the way.I want to move to the Jeff Merkley stunt that happened today, Democrat senator from Oregon tries to enter an immigration center. Let's watch.


SEN. JEFF MERKLEY, (D) OREGON: Yes, can I go in with you?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, sir, you cannot go in with me.

MERKLEY: My team contacted this facility and ask for permission for me to come and see what is going on inside with these children.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We don't have any permission for that. So I'm going to please ask you to go away.


INGRAHAM: The Homeland Security responded, and they said at 2:00 p.m. Friday the senator asked to visit a secured DHS facility over the weekend where children are present, and we worked with him to provide him access. This presented obvious and serious privacy concerns for the kids who were in there, not to mention disrupting operations. He was able to visit the facility on Sunday. Stunt, not stunt?

JUDD: It was a complete stunt. He had the media there. He knew that he was going to get turned away. Just because you're a congressman or just because you are an elected official does not give you the right to do anything that you want to do.

INGRAHAM: And these people are OK with California not letting our officials, DHS officials, go into their -- so now it's like the tables are turned.

JUDD: Of course. But you expect that from the Democrats. We always expect stuff like that.

INGRAHAM: Hey, Brandon, have fun at the White House tomorrow. You're still going to have fun. Do like a touch football game. Get the president, get them all out there.

JUDD: My son is a good football player.

INGRAHAM: Get him out there. He's going to get a haircut, though, later on, right?


INGRAHAM: I'm teasing your son.

We will be right back. Stay there.


INGRAHAM: Cavs are going to win six to two? I'm not supposed to pick sides. We are a show for the whole country. Sorry, Cavs are going to win. And Steph Curry, come on, Golden State Warriors, unbelievable game last night. What are we, sports? No, we're not. We're politics and the culture. But sports is important, it's part of the culture. Shannon Bream is a huge sports fan and she has a great show on tap (ph), right, Shannon? You're a Cavs fan, hello?


<Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>